`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OMNI MEDSCI, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,517,484
`
`IPR Case No.: IPR2021-00453
`
`______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 1 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`i
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ ................................ ................ iii
`UPDATED LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................ ................................ ........... v
`I. Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ . 1
`II. Overview of the ‘484 Patent ................................ ................................ ........ 4
`A. The ‘484 Patent discloses innovative systems for making
`accurate non-invasive physiological measurements ........................... 4
`B. AIA status and Priority Date ................................ .............................. 8
`III. Claim Construction ................................ ................................ ...................... 8
`A. The “pulse rate” limitation (all claims) ................................ .............. 8
`B. “to identify an object” (Claims 3 and 8) ................................ ............11
`C. “to detect an object” (Claim 16)................................ ........................ 13
`IV. The Board should deny the Petition because it fails to establish prima
`facie obviousness of the Challenged Claims ................................ ...............14
`A. Grounds 1 & 2: Apple has failed to show that Lisogurski, alone,
`or combined with Carlson, renders the “pulse rate” limitation
`obvious ................................ ................................ ............................. 14
`1. Lisogurski alone: The changes in LED firing rate during
`Lisogurski’s CCM, which Apple relies on for
`obviousness, undisputedly “have no measurable effect on
`SNR” ................................ ................................ ...................... 15
`a) Apple’s first Lisogurski-alone argument depends
`on CCM ................................ ................................ ........16
`b) Apple’s second Lisogurski-alone argument “also”
`depends on CCM ................................ .......................... 17
`c) Apple ignores the undisputed evidence that CCM
`“firing rate” increases do not increase SNR .................. 21
`2. Carlson does not disclose “increasing a pulse rate …
`from an initial pulse rate” as the Challenged Claims
`require................................ ................................ ..................... 24
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 2 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`ii
`3. Lisogurski and Carlson: Modifying Lisogurski’s CCM
`“as taught by Carlson” changes CCM’s principle of
`operation ................................ ................................ .................26
`B. Ground 2 (Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-22): Apple (a) does not
`identify which of its 10 background references provide a
`motivation to combine Tran with Lisogurski and (b) fails to
`provide a motivation to combine all three references ........................ 33
`C. Ground 2 (Claims 3, 8, and 16): Knowing a sensor is
`disconnected is not detecting, or identifying, an object ..................... 36
`D. Ground 3 (Claims 5 and 13): Apple’s combination of four
`references lacks a motivation to combine all four references ............38
`E. Ground 4 (Claims 6, 14, and 23): Apple’s combination of five
`references lacks a motivation to combine all five references .............40
`V. Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ..43
`Certificate of Service ................................ ................................ ............................ 44
`Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ................................ ......45
`
`
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 3 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`iii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Cases
`In re Fritch,
` 972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ................................ ............................. 38, 41
`
`In re Kahn,
` 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................ .............. 33-34, 37, 39-41
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
` 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................ ............................. 19, 31
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
` 654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................ ....................... 31, 38, 40
`
`In re Ratti,
` 270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959)................................ ............................... 28, 30
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc'ns, Inc.,
` 751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................ ............................. 39, 41
`
`Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.,
` IPR2018-00827 Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2018) .............................. 34, 38, 40
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................ ................................ ........ 33, 39, 41
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
` 724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................ ....................... 34, 38, 40
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
` 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ................................ ................................ .......... 19, 31
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
` 200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................ ................................ ...... 8
`
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
` 830 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................ ................................ ...12
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 4 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`iv
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ................................ ................................ ................................ ....32
`Other Authorities
`MPEP 2143.01 ................................ ................................ ................................ 28, 30
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 5 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`v
`UPDATED LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`No. Description
`2101-2119 Reserved
`2120 PCT Application Serial No. PCT/US2013/075767
`(Publication No. WO/2014/143276)
`2121 U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/109,007 (Publication
`No. 2014/0236021)
`2122 Reserved
`2123 Curriculum Vitae of Duncan L. MacFarlane, Ph.D., P.E.
`2124 Board’s Institution Decision, IPR2019-000916, Paper 16,
`October 18, 2019 (“DI”)
`2125 Board’s Final Written Decision, IPR2019-00916, Paper 39,
`October 14, 2020
`2126-2130 Reserved
`2136
`Declaration of Duncan L. MacFarlane, Ph.D., P.E. in Support
`of Patent Owner’s Response to Petition in IPR2020-00175,
`September 10, 2020
`2132 Excerpt of Record of Oral Hearing held March 25, 2021,
`IPR2020-00175, Paper 25, April 14, 2021
`2133 Board’s Institution Decision, IPR2020-00175, Paper 11, June
`17, 2020
`2134 Definitions of IDENTIFY in The Free Dictionary
`2135 Definitions of DETECT in The Free Dictionary
`2136 Declaration of Duncan L. MacFarlane, Ph.D., P.E. in Support
`of Patent Owner’s Response, November 12, 2021
`
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 6 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`1
`Omni MedSci, Inc. (“Omni”), submits this Response to the Petition for Inter
`Partes Review (“Petition,” Paper 1) that Apple Inc. (“ Apple”) filed against Claims
`1-23 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,517,484 (“the ‘484 Patent”).
`I. Introduction
`In Ground 1 , Apple challenges independent Claims 1, 7, and 15, and
`dependent Claim 17 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using a combination of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,241,676 (“Lisogurski”) (Ex. 1011) and U.S. Patent Pub. 2005/0049468
`(“Carlson”) (Ex. 1009).
`In Ground 2 , Apple challenges independent Claims 1, 7, and 15, and
`dependent Claims 2–4, 8–12, and 16–22 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using a
`combination of Lisogurski, Carlson, and U.S. Patent No. 8,108,036 (“Tran”) (Ex.
`1064).
`In Ground 3, Apple challenges dependent Claims 5 and 13 as obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 using a combination of Lisogurski, Carlson, Tran, and U.S. Patent
`No. 8,725,226 (“Isaacson”) (Ex. 1063).
`In Ground 4, Apple challenges dependent Claims 6, 14, and 23 as obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using a combination of Lisogurski, Carlson, Tran, and U.S.
`Patent Publication No. 2012/0197093 (“Valencell -093”) (Ex. 1005) “with or
`without” Isaacson.
`The Board should confirm the patentability of all claims.
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 7 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`2
`For all Grounds, Apple relies on just two references, Lisogurski and Carlson,
`to disclose the “ increasing a pulse rate ” limitation recited in the challenged
`independent claims. Neither reference teaches or suggests the limitation, alone or in
`combination. Lisogurski fails to teach or suggest that cardiac cycle modulation
`(“CCM”) increases SNR as claimed. Apple does not dispute Dr. MacFarlane’s
`testimony that the trivial changes in firing rate during CCM “would have no
`measurable effect on SNR.” (Ex. 2136, ¶ 83.)1 On the contrary, Lisogurski teaches
`a different modulation technique (drive cycle modulation) to address noise by
`modulating at a frequency far above th at of ambient no ise and the 0.5 –3 Hz
`frequency of CCM. But the Petition makes no reference to Lisogurski’s drive cycle
`modulation. Lisogurski’s use of high frequenc y modulation, in addition to CCM,
`confirms that the trivial changes in LED firing rates that occur in the 0.5–3 Hz range
`do not increase SNR.
`Apple also asserts Lisogurski’s teaching of CCM can be modified “as taught
`by Carlson” to render the pulse rate limitation obvious. (Pet. 5 3.) Modifying
`Lisogurski “as taught by Carlson” is not viable because it impermissibly changes
`Lisogurski’s CCM principle of oper ation. I ncreasing CCM’s LED pulse r ate to
`1000 Hz or higher, as Carlson teaches, is far beyond a human heart rate, changing
`
`1 All emphasis added unless otherwise indicated.
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 8 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`3
`the core principle of the teaching Apple relies on . Apple, therefore, has not
`established a prima facie obviousness of the Challenged Claims.
`In Ground 2, Apple challenges dependent Claims 2, 10, and 18 (“ artificial
`intelligence”). Apple argues that Lisogurski + Carlson + Tran make these claims
`obvious. Apple does not name which of its 10 background references provide a
`motivation to combine Tran with Lisogurski. The Petition does not discuss any
`reason an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to combine Tran with Carlson,
`as needed to make the full combination.
`Also in Ground 2, Apple challenges dependent Claims 3, 8, and 16 (“ object
`identification/detection”). Apple quotes Lisogurski’s statement, “the system may
`detect a signal indicative of a system error such as … a probe-off signal.” (Pet. 62.)
`A signal that a sensor is missing does not “detect an object” (as Claim 16 requires),
`nor does it “identify an object” as a particular thing (as Claims 3 and 8 require).
`In Ground 3 , Apple challenges dependent Claims 5 and 13 (“ spatially
`separated detectors ”). Apple asserts these claims require a combination of four
`references: Lisogurski + Carlson + Tran + Isaacson. But the Petition only discusses
`reasons to combine Lisogurski + Isaacson, rather than t he full combination that
`supports Ground 3. The Petition merely says that the four references are analogous
`art, but it never explains a motivation-teaching-suggestion to combine all four
`references. Apple cannot combine four references to challenge the spectral
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 9 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`4
`fingerprinting claims absent a motivation-teaching-suggestion to combine all four
`references.
`In Ground 4, Apple challenges dependent Claims 6, 14, and 23: (“ reflective
`surface”). Apple asserts these claims require a combination of five references:
`Lisogurski + Carlson + Tran + Isaacson + Valencell-093. But the Petition only
`discusses reasons to combine Lisogurski + Valencell -093, rath er than the full
`combination that supports Ground 4. The Petition merely says that four of the five
`references are analogous art, and it never explains a motivation-teaching-suggestion
`to combine all five references. Apple cannot combine five references to challenge
`the reflective surface claims absent a motivation-teaching-suggestion to combine all
`five references.
`II. Overview of the ‘484 Patent
`A. The ‘484 Patent discloses innovative systems for making
`accurate non-invasive physiological measurements
`The Challenged Claims of the ‘484 Patent are directed to a measurement
`system for making more accurate non -invasive physiological measurements of a
`material or substance, including human tissue and blood. The ‘484 Patent describes
`application of the measurement syst em to “non-invasive glucose monitoring,” and
`“non-invasive monitoring of blood constituents or blood analytes” using “near -
`infrared spectroscopy.” (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 10:2-7; 2:64-3:30.) Figure 24 of the
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 10 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`5
`‘484 Patent, reproduced below (color added), shows a high -level overview of an
`exemplary physiological measurement system 2400. The system includes a wearable
`measurement device (blue), a smart phone or tablet (red), and a cloud-based server
`(yellow). (Id. 17:10-13; 15:53-61; 7:65-8:27.)
`
`The ‘484 Pate nt discloses inspecting a sample “by comparing different
`features, such as wavelength (or frequency), spatial location, transmission,
`absorption, reflectivity, scattering, fluorescence, refractive index, or opacity” of the
`sample. (Ex. 1001 at 10:2-7.) This may entail measuring various optical
`characteristics of the sample as a function of the wavelength of the source light, e.g.,
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 11 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`6
`by varying the wavelength of the source light or by using a broadband source of
`light. (Ex. 1001 at 10:8-18.)
`The ‘484 Patent describes various techniques for improving the signal -to-
`noise ratio (“SNR”) of the physiological measurement made using the light source.
`For example, the SNR may be improved by increasing the light intensity from the
`light source. Ex. 1001 at 15:53-55 (“a higher light level or intensity may improve
`the signal-to-noise ratio for the measurement”). As another example, in a “pulsed
`mode of operation,” the light source can increase the pulse rate to improve SNR.
`(Ex. 1001 at 26:29-34.)
`As to the latter, the specification states, “ By use of an active illuminator, a
`number of advantages may be achieved” including “higher signal -to-noise ratios.”
`(Ex. 1001 at 16:61-65.) PCT Application Serial No. PCT/US2013/075767
`(Publication No. WO/2014/143276) (Ex. 2120) is incorporated by reference into the
`‘484 specification and describes the use of an “active illuminator” to achieve “higher
`signal-to-noise ratios” despite “variations due to sunlight” and the “effects of the
`weather, such as clouds and rain.” (Ex. 1001 at 2:26-29; Ex. 2120, ¶ [0079].) This
`follows U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/109,007 (Publication No.
`2014/0236021) (Ex. 2121) , also incorporated by reference into the ‘484
`specification, which discloses that the modulation frequency of the light source is
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 12 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`7
`non-zero and can range between “0.1 -100kHz.” (Ex. 1001 at 2:36-39; Ex . 2121,
`¶ [0045].)
`The “light source” can comprise several components. For example, Figure 20
`shows a light source (2000) that uses “pulse electronics” (yellow) to pulse a diode
`(blue). (Ex. 1001 at 28:19-21; FIG. 20.)
`
`The pulse electronics in this example can drive the diode with a “0.5 -2.0 ns
`pulsed output, and with a pulse repetition rate between one kilohertz to about 100
`MHz or more.” (Ex. 1001 at 28:24-26.)
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 13 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`8
`B. AIA status and Priority Date
`Omni does not contest that the ‘484 Patent is an AIA patent. Apple asserts in
`a footnote that the ‘484 Patent “violates 37 C.F.R. §1.78(d)(2)” (Pet . 15, n.2) but
`offers no evidence or analysis to support its conclusory statement. And Apple’s
`assertion is irrelevant for this IPR because Omni does not contest that the references
`Apple relies on (Lisogurski, Carlson, Tran, and Valencell -093, and Isaacson) are
`prior art to the ‘484 Patent.
`III. Claim Construction
`While Omni does not necessarily agree with Petitioner regarding its proposed
`constructions, none of the claim terms Apple identifies for construction relate to the
`disputed issues in this Response except for the pulse rate limitation. Vivid Techs.,
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms
`need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy”).
`A. The “pulse rate” limitation (all claims)
`Independent claim 1 of the ‘484 Patent is reproduced below with emphasis
`added to the “wearable device … increasing a pulse rate” limitation:
`1. A system for measuring one or more physiological parameters and
`for use with a smart phone or tablet, the system comprising:
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 14 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`9
`a wearable device adapted to be placed on a wrist or an ear of a user,
`including a light source comprising a plurality of semiconductor
`sources that are light emitting diodes, each of the light emitting
`diodes configured to generate an output optical light having one
`or more optical wavelengths;
`the wearable device comprising one or more lenses configured to
`receive a portion of at least one of the output optical lights and to
`direct a lens output light to tissue;
`the wearable device further comprising a detection system
`configured to receive at least a portion of the lens output light
`reflected from the tissue and to generate an output signal having
`a signal -to-noise ratio, wherein the detection system is
`configured to be synchronized to the light source;
`wherein the detection system comprises a plurality of spatially
`separated detectors, and wherein at least one analog to digital
`converter is coupled to at least one of the spatially separated
`detectors;
`wherein a detec tor output from the at least one of the plurality of
`spatially separated detectors is coupled to an amplifier havi ng a
`gain configured to improve detection sensitivity;
`the smart phone or tablet comprising a wireless receiver, a wireless
`transmitter, a dis play, a speaker, a voice input module, one or
`more buttons or knobs, a microprocessor and a touch screen, the
`smart phone or tablet configured to receive and process at least a
`portion of the output signal, wherein the smart phone or tablet is
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 15 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`10
`configured to store and display the processed output signal, and
`wherein at least a portion of the processed output signal is
`configured to be transmitted over a wireless transmission link;
`a cloud configured to receive over the wireless transmission link an
`output status comprising the at least a portion of the processed
`output signal, to process the received output status to ge nerate
`processed data, and to store the processed data;
`wherein the output signal is indicative of one or more of the
`physiological parameters, and the cloud is configured to store a
`history of at least a portion of the one or more physiological
`parameters over a specified period of time;
`the wearable device configured to increase the signal -to-noise
`ratio by increasing light intensity of at lea st one of the plurality
`of semiconductor sources from an initial light intensity and by
`increasing a pulse rate of at least one of the plurality of
`semiconductor sources from an initial pulse rate; and
`the detection system further configured to:
`generate a first signal responsive to light while the light emitting
`diodes are off,
`generate a second signal responsive to light received while at least
`one of the light emitting diodes is on, and
`increase the signal-to-noise ratio by differencing the first signal and
`the second signal.
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 16 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`11
`Apple identifies three constructions for the pulse rate limitation without
`committing to an y of them. (Pet . 20-21.) In the IPR2020-00175 Final Written
`Decision (“FWD”), the Board said the nearly identical2 pulse rate limitation needed
`no construction, distinguishing it from the “pulse rate” limitation in IPR2019-00916.
`(Ex. 2133 at 18-19.) Likewise, the pulse rate limitation in the ‘484 Patent needs no
`construction.
`B. “to identify an object” (Claims 3 and 8)
`Claims 3 and 8 recite: “the wearable device is at least in part configured to
`identify an object [.]” Apple does not propose a construction for “ to identify an
`object.” The word “identify” is a common word that means “to recognize or establish
`as being a particular person or thing .” ( Ex. 2134 p. 2, quoting Random House
`Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary (2010).)3
`
`2 The o nly difference between the two limitations is the initial phrase of the
`limitations. In the ‘299 Patent (at issue in IPR2020-00175), the pulse rate limitation
`begins, “the system configured to,” whereas in the ‘484 Patent the limitation begins,
`“the wearable device configured to.” Otherwise, the limitations are identical.
`3 Omni uses this 2010 definition because it was published shortly before the 2012
`priority date of the ‘484 Patent. The other dictionary definitions are nearly identical.
`(Ex. 2134, pp. 1.)
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 17 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`12
`The claims themselves confirm this ordinary meaning. For example, Claim 16
`is nearly identical with Claims 3 and 8—the Petition lumps Claim 16 with Claims 3
`and 8 (see Pet. 62)—but Claim 16 uses “to detect an object” instead of “to identify
`an object.” Thi s difference in claim language creates a presumption that
`identification, which requires recognizing or establishing an object as a particular
`thing, differs from detection, which merely requires noticing an object’s presence
`(see Ex. 2135). Wi-LAN USA, In c. v. Apple Inc ., 830 F.3d 1374, 1391 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) (“A construction that wou ld cause two differently worded claims to cover
`exactly the same claim scope would render one of the claims superfluous, so we
`apply a presumption against such constructions.”)
`The ‘484 Patent specification (Ex. 1001) also confirms that, to “identify an
`object” requires an object be identified as a particular thing:
`• 7:21-24: “Hyper-spectral images may provide spectral information to
`identify and distinguish between spectrally similar materials,
`providing the ability to make proper distinctions among materia ls
`with only subtle signature differences;”
`• 8:18-22: “the active remote sensi ng or hyper -spectral imaging
`information could also be combined with two -dimensional or three -
`dimensional images to provide a physical picture as well as a chemical
`composition identification of the materials;”
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 18 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`13
`• 12:57-60: “it may be advantageous to use patt ern matching algorithms
`and other software and mathematical methods to identify the blood
`constituents of interest;”
`• 15:45-48: “Various signal processing methods may be used to identify
`and quantify the concentration of cholesterol 876 and/or glucose 877,
`or some of the other blood constituents.”
`So, “to identify an object” in Claims 3 and 8 means “to recognize or establish
`an object as being a particular thing.”
`C. “to detect an object” (Claim 16)
`Claim 16 recites: “the wearable device is at least in part configured to detect
`an object[.]” Apple does not propose a construction for “to detect an object.” The
`word “detect” is a common word that means “to discover or notice the existence or
`presence of.” (Ex. 2135 p. 1, quoting Random House Kernerman Webster's College
`Dictionary (2010).)
`As noted in the prior section, Claims 3 and 8 use “identify,” creating a
`presumption that “detect” in Claim 16 has a different meaning. Wi-LAN, 830 F.3d at
`1391. The specification (Ex. 1001), confirms the ordinary meaning of “detect”:
`• 11:22-37: “[glucose] signatures may fall in valleys of water absorption,
`permitting non-invasive detection through the body;”
`• 13:23-24: “In one embodiment, these ketone bodies are detected;”
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 19 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`14
`• 14:54-64: “the non-invasive SWIR measurement should be able to
`detect HbAle with appropriate pattern matching algorithms;”
`• 15:31-33: “A further example of blood compositions that can be
`detected or measured using near -infrared light includ es cholesterol
`monitoring;”
`• 25:26: “detect any anomalies in the teeth;”
`• 35:65-67: “The discussion thus far has included use of near-infrared or
`SWIR spectroscopy in applications such as … detection of illicit
`drugs.”
`So, “to detect an object” in Claim 16 means “ to discover or notice the
`existence or presence of something.”
`
`IV. The Board should deny the Petition because it fails to establish
`prima facie obviousness of the Challenged Claims
`A. Grounds 1 & 2: Apple has failed to show that Lisogurski,
`alone, or combined with Carlson, renders the “pulse rate”
`limitation obvious
`The three i ndependent claim s, Claims 1, 7, and 15 , from which all other
`Challenged Claims depend, require: “the wearable device configured to increase the
`signal-to-noise ratio ... by increasing a pulse rate of at least one of the plurality of
`semiconductor sources from an initial pulse rate .” Apple asserts that Lisogurski
`discloses this limitation, and if not disclosed in Lisogurski alone, it would have been
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 20 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`15
`obvious to modify Lisogurski “as taught by Carlson.” (Pet. 48-53.) Apple asserts no
`other basis for finding the pulse rate limitation obvious.
`1. Lisogurski alone: The changes in LED firing rate
`during Lisogurski’s CCM, which Apple relies on for
`obviousness, undisputedly “have no measurable effect
`on SNR”
`Regarding Lisogurski alone, Apple makes two arguments. First, Apple relies
`on Lisogurski’s disclosure of “first” and “second” modulation mode s, “sampling
`rate” changes, and Omni’s expert’s “general statement” that a faster modulation rate
`may “lower the background noise .” (Pet. 48-50.) Second, Apple “also” relies on
`“Lisogurski’s cardiac cycle modulation. ” (Pet. 50-51.) But both arguments rely on
`the same disclosure regarding Lisogurski’s CCM , so the “also” in Apple’s second
`argument is inapt. (Ex. 2136, ¶ 88.)
`In the Institution Decision (“ DI”), the Board contended that Apple did not
`limit its Lisogurski -alone arguments to CCM, quoting Apple’s expert’s statement
`that “‘cardiac cycle modulation’ also teaches [the pulse rate] limitation.” (DI 31,
`emphasis in original). But, as explained b elow, Apple cites and discusses only
`Lisogurski’s descriptions of CCM and Apple does not cite or discuss “firing rate”
`changes other than in CCM.
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 21 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`16
`a) Apple’s first Lisogurski-alone argument
`depends on CCM
`Apple’s first argument assert s that Lisogurski’s system can “dynamically
`adjust the parameters of light emitted by the LEDs.” (Pet. 48.) Apple cites “Ex. 1011,
`9:46-52; id., 37:6-22” for support. At 9:46 -52, Lisogurski is expressly discussing
`CCM: “the system may modify the cardiac modulation technique … .” At 37:6-22,
`Lisogurski is discussing CCM’s “second mode”: The text describes Figure 19, a flow
`chart “showing steps to adjust a cardiac cycle modulation[.]” (Ex. 1011, 36:48-49.)
`Apple’s first Lisogurski-alone argument thus depends on CCM. (Ex. 2136, ¶ 89.)
`The other statements Apple makes in its first Lisogurski -alone argument do
`not relate to Lisogurski’s “firing rate.” Apple discusses “sampling rate,” which is
`irrelevant to the “pulse rate” limitation. (Ex. 2136, ¶ 90.) Apple asserts, “increased
`sampling rate results in more samples” so, “signal to noise [ratio] improves because
`the noise is spread across more samples.” (Pet. 49.) But any SNR improvement from
`sampling rate changes do not meet the claims’ requirement of increasing the LED
`pulse rate. (Ex. 2136, ¶ 90.)
`Apple next cites Dr. MacFarlane’s “general sta tement” that increasing LED
`pulse rate can sometimes “lower the background noise.” (Pet. 50.) The statements
`Apple quotes were not about Lisogurski, as Apple has admitted. (Ex. 2132 at 4:11-
`13.) Apple’s attorney merely asked Dr. MacFarlane an abstract ques tion. Apple
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 22 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`17
`never asked Dr. MacFarlane whether Lisogurski’s CCM firing rate increases affect
`SNR, presumably because Apple knew the answer would be “no.” Dr. MacFarlane’s
`“general statement” does not apply to Lisogurski’ CCM because, as Dr. MacFarlane
`explains in his declaration, the firing rate changes during CCM do not increase SNR.
`(Ex. 2136, ¶ 91.)
`b) Apple’s second Lisogurski-alone argument
`“also” depends on CCM
`Apple transitions to its second Lisogurski -alone argument by asserting,
`“Lisogurski’s ‘cardiac cycle modulation ’ also satisfies [the pulse rate] limitation
`…. Lisogurski’s ‘cardiac cycle modulation ’ varies light drive signal parameters,
`such as firing rate, to remain ‘substantially synchronous[] with ’ a subject’s heart
`rate.” (Pet 50.) Apple then discusses how “the firing rate will increase whenever a
`subject’s heart rate increases” and calls it “[t]his increase in firing rate.” (Id.) Apple’s
`second argument thus depends expressly on CCM. (Ex. 2136, ¶ 93.)
`In the DI, the Board sought to distance Apple’s arguments from CCM by
`asserting, “Petitioner’s references to ‘firing rate’ in its discussion of the pulse rate
`limitation refers to the pulse rate of the LED, not to the rate of CCM.” (DI 32.) But
`that ignores the Petit ion: Apple expressly says “the firing rate” is linked to “a
`subject’s heart rate.” (Pet. 50.) And Apple’s sole support for its second Lisogurski-
`alone argument is CCM:
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1024
`Page 23 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00453 Atty. Dkt. No.: OMSC0119IPR1
`Patent No.: 10,517,484
`
`
`18
`• Ex. 1011, 25:46-61: “[T]he system may generate a light drive signal that
`varies with a p eriod the same as or closely related to the period of the
`cardiac cycle, thus generating a cardiac cycle modulation. … [T]he system
`may use a cardiac cycle modulation that spans several cardiac cycles[.]”
`• Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 181-182: “Lisogurski’s ‘ cardiac cycle modulation ’ also
`teaches this limitation. Lisogurski describes its “ cardiac cycle
`modulation” : [quoting Ex. 1011, 25:46-52.] A person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have understood these disclosures to mean ….”
`• Ex. 1011, 42:50 -54: T